Talk:Overseas expansion of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

This page contains talk on the History of United States Imperalism page from February 2004 and earlier.

Getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars

Where are you getting 1854-90 for Indian Wars? - Hephaestos 01:19, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Large-scale incidents began after Wounded Knee, and by 1890 there was virtually no Indian opposition to the U.S. --Alex S 01:21, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there was no fighting; the Battle of Fallen Timbers springs to mind, for example. I think an argument could be made they started in 1776 with regard to the U.S. as such. - Hephaestos 01:26, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Isolated incidents don't equate to a war. I agree that they should be listed, but as sepearte events and not under "Indian Wars." --Alex S 01:33, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They were all isolated events when looked at that way, including Little Bighorn and Wounded Knee. We can't have it both ways. - Hephaestos 01:35, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

They were "isolated events" only in the sense that each battle between the British and the American Revolutionaries were "isolated events." What makes it a war is the magnitude of conflict. Between the years 1865 and 1898, 943 battles were fought during 12 different campaigns, and over 30 wars were fought between 1850 and 1865. Nothing of this magnitude occured before 1850 or after 1890. --Alex S 01:51, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

big problems with this page

I have big problems with this page. The title expresses a blatant POV, namely that every military action ever taken by the United States was "Imperialist" (whatever that means). We already have a page about the military history of the United States, and that seems to cover all the events mentioned on this page just fine. If anything, this page should be a redirect to the US military history, and nothing more. user:J.J.

I understand what you're saying, but it simply isn't true that every military action taken by the United States is here. There is no mention of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, or the war in Kosovo. These are all significant wars that have no place in the "History of Imperialism" Page. --Alex S 23:39, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So it doesn't...but what is the criteria for inclusion on this page? Can that be determined without running into significant POV problems? It can be argued that the Indian wars were a domestic issue, since the US considered indian lands part of its own territory. Hawaii wanted to be annexed (it was conquered only through economic means.) How was the Afghanistan invasion not justified? It's all iffy... --Jiang 23:50, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

On the other hand, people who live in other parts of the world find this sort of information very useful to have around. If you want to delete this page (for that is what turning it into a redirect to a page on a different topic amounts to) then list it in the ordinary way on VFD, and see if you can achieve a consensus. (BTW, I think the title sucks, but can't think of a better one at this moment.) Tannin 17:21, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's an important subject

Some advice for those who are working on this page:

It's an important subject and certainly ought to be dealt with here on the Wikipedia. In itself, this list of military interventions is highly informative. However, the title of the page sucks (imperialism is one of those taboo words that you just can't use if you want people to take you seriously - even when it is entirely appropriate). Something better is required. Secondly, it needs some top and tail. Why is this list significant? Who selected these particular events? What is the common thread that binds them all together? My advice to you (the people working on this page) is to sort these to problems out, or else be prepared to spend the rest of your lives defending this page's right to exist against those who like to pretend that none of this stuff ever happened. And anyway it was all an accident. Honest! Tannin

I'll admit that I'm uncomfortable about this page. Partly because, yes, I'm a US citizen, but mostly because it appears to suggest that every war the US has engaged in (with the possible exceptions of the Revolutionary & American Civil Wars) have been acts of imperialism. I'd feel that contributors must confront & explain the following questions:

• How are the Indian Wars acts of imperialism? Yes, the US conquered & acculturated the native inhabitants of North America under the ideology of Manifest Destiny, but how is this different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or of how medieval countries like France or England defeated and acculturated neighboring small nations like Brittany, Cornwall, Wales & Scotland? From reading the Imperialism article, I fail to see even the admission that a country or nation can aggressively act towards a neighboring state or nation that is not imperialistic. And if this is true, then we end up removing a specific meaning from that word.
• How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) Quickly reviewing the history of the US, I'd say that there have been several expressions of imperialism in US history: Manifest Destiny, for example, expresses a different vision than does Paul Wolfowitz.
• Distinguishing between imperialism as a direct act (i.e., physical coercion of another state or nation) vs. imperialism as a metaphor (e.g., cultural imperialism -- how US fads & fashions shape daily life outside of the boundaries of the US from Toronto to the people of India, Malaysia, & Zimbabwe who can't even speak English). -- llywrch 18:15, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let me try my hand at answering those questions of yours, Llywrch.

• How are the Indian Wars different from Australia's subjection of its native peoples? Or medieval countries like France or England (&etc.). Not different in the sightest, so far as I can tell.
• How does US Imperialism relate to 19th century imperialism (e.g., the acts of England, France, Germany, etc.) More subtle to begin with, not very different today.
• How to distinguish between imperialism as a direct act vs. imperialism as a metaphor for cultural and economic imperialism? Yes, the distinction can become very blurred from time to time. In general, I think I'd be inclined to tackle the two things in different articles. But I don't think there is an easy answer to this one.

There have undoubtedly been wars that the US took part in which were not mainly to do with imperialism - WW1 and WW2 are obvious examples. Korea may be another. Even the Gulf War, maybe. I'd give the benefit of the doubt on that one, anyway, though others may not. You raise good questions. Tannin 18:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Gosh, why not just title this entry American Genocide? American Imperialism is another subject, involving an imperium or hegemony over other states, viz Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Philippines, Central America. To extend it like this may dilute its meaning. The adjectival form is "American"-- or "North American" or "Yankee" etc. 'United States' is a noun.User:Wetman

It's all well and good, but I still don't understand why these largely military conflicts cannot simply be added to the Military History of the United States page. "American Imperialism," though currently in fashion, is simply not an academic term. This page makes about as much logical sense as a Bad Things the United States Has Done page, or hell, even a Bad wars vs. Good wars page. Just combine it all into one military history page and let people decide for themselves what is or isn't "imperialist". user:J.J.

Also, there is really no distinction between the History of the United States and the History of United States Imperialism. The United States' predecessor colonies were part of the British Empire's imperialism, and they split from Britain largely because they wished to continue it - into the territories like Indiana which is named that precisely because it *was* promised to the natives, along with what is now Ontario (thus the reasoning for natives siding with Britain during the American Revolution). This continued to the rest of the continent, and down into Latin America, and over the Pacific, etc. etc., even into China itself with other imperial powers in the early 20th century. There has always been poo-pooing of US imperialism - around its least defensible acts like the conquest of the Philippines under Theodore Roosevelt - which was against guerillas who had an ideology very much like the American Revolution's own... Cuba, Vietnam, etc., could be seen the same way, both Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh had quite a bit of swaying between the US and USSR, but in both cases the support package for being a Communist was better.

I don't quite understand

I don't quite understand why there's so much opposition to a page entitled history of US Imperialism when no one's said a word about Spanish Empire, Portuguese Empire, or British Empire. Part of being NPOV means not letting national feeling interfere with judgement. Although I admit that there is an intrinsic POV element in the idea of a History of US Imperialism, doesn't the fact that many (most?) people across the globe view us as imperalist warrant some sort of explanation/historical background? As the year progresses I'll be working on this article slowly; maybe when it's more developed you'll be able to see exactly what sort of content I'm aiming for. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. --Alex S 14:50, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

There is no doubt that following the Spanish American War the United States did become a formal, European-style Imperial power for some time. However, the fact remains that the United States' formal reign of imperialism was almost entirely centered around that war and its aftermath. Therefore, a page on US imperialism should focus on the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, etc. Calling Vietnam, Iraq, et al "imperialist" is one person's opinion. Certainly these wars were not fought with the goal to "conquor and colonize" these countries, so they are not imperialist. You may view capitalism as a "form of imperialism" but that's a personal view.

I personally think this page should simply be merged with American Empire.

user:J.J.

I'm not creating this page because it's my "personal view," I'm creating it to give a sense of historical background to a view that many people (especially outside the US) share. I'm not trying to prove that the US is or was an imperialist power, I'm just laying out the arguments for those who believe so and the arguments against such a conception. There's nothing inherently non-NPOV about opinions and arguments, as long as they're presented as such. That's what I'm doing. --Alex S 04:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is a completely lame article. British Empire etc is not problematic because that's what the British called it themselves - Victoria had the official title "Empress of India" for instance. But it's blaming the victim to call it "imperialism" when the British induced Indian tribes to attack US citizens and the US govt successfully acted to protect its own people. Adding a "many feel" to dress up personal biases and ignorance as NPOV doesn't fool anybody. The westward expansion was an ugly period of ugly deeds, but to call it "imperialism" is to completely misunderstand the times and the people involved. Stan 05:54, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I could say that those in favor of abortion are ignorant and misunderstand the issue, but that wouldn't change what they're saying, and it wouldn't make it any less important to explain and discuss those views on some part of wikipedia. --Alex S 16:04, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Imperialism is rarely admitted to when it is practised"?? That's why the British Colonial Office was so secret that nobody knew its name, and the Spanish viceroys in the New World worked in windowless offices and had a cover story, right? If this article is about the ignorant views of ignorant people repeating leftover Soviet-era calumnies, then the article should be entitled "Claims of United States imperialism", not purporting to be a "history" describing accepted facts. Stan 05:47, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The British did not go around and say "let's invade some country to enlarge our empire". They always had some pretext like everyone else. Even Hitler made up a flimsy excuse when attacking Poland. Which aggressor (in modern times) has ever admitted he's an aggressor? One can easily see a consistent line of U.S. pretexts for aggression, from the "USS Maine" to the "Gulf of Tonkin" to the "Iraqi WMDs". And that is how most of the world sees it. Remember this is not an American encyclopaedia, NPOV is not defined by what is accepted by U.S. opinion. Do you deny that the Spanish-American War is now universally considered imperialist, although at the time that was strongly denied by the U.S. government and its supporters? --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Don't you know anything about history? The British dreamed about acquiring the land for the Cape-to-Cairo railway for decades, all very much in public, and they were very forthright about their superiority, the need to "civilize" the locals, the need to forestall competition from other European countries, and so forth. They were very proud of their empire - for instance Canada printed the slogan "we hold a vaster empire than has been" on its Christmas stamp of 1898, the slogan itself being from a poem composed for Victoria's jubilee in 1887. By comparison, it took years of drum-beating about Spanish misdeeds, some sleight-of-hand by Teddy R., and further drum-beating after the explosion of the Maine just to get public support for a war with Spain, support which turned back to indifference in a couple years. US imperialism is a serious subject that deserves to be treated seriously, not as list of superficial bullet points. Stan 17:25, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Of course British imperialism and U.S. imperialism are different in various respects. But in every specific military action which contributed to the creation of their empire, the British had some specific excuse, in the same way the U.S. always has an excuse. And the larger imperialist goals of the U.S. are no secret either, and are spelled out in semi-official documents like "Rebuilding America's Defenses". And when you say the British "were very forthright about their superiority, the need to 'civilize' the locals" that sounds familiar too. Isn't the U.S. saying it is bringing "freedom" to those countries which just can't govern themselves? I see you don't deny that the war with Spain was imperialist, so how can you positively say the war with Iraq is not? --Wik 18:15, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Indeed. It would be unforgivably rash at this point to say that the Iraq invasion was about "conquest and colonization," but it would be just as rash at this point to say definitely that it was not. I'll believe that when I see some evidence to the contrary. - Hephaestos 18:22, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Saying that British military actions had to have "excuses" is to apply 20th-century thinking to 19th-century individuals. The British (and French, etc) didn't feel the need to hide any of this; conquest was good in and of itself, blessed by the clergy, approved of by journalists, etc. The Scramble of Africa included highly-visible international conferences for who got to own what, with the universal expectation that the military had a free hand to enforce those decisions on the ground. Also note that I'm not claiming Iraq is not an imperialist move, like Hephaestos I think it's too soon to know - although it tells you something when an administration has to spend months drumming up support for action, even after 12 years of nonstop SH demonization. In Victorian England the local commander would have invaded Iraq on his own authority, and informed the Colonial Office later, after receiving universal adulation in the newspapers. :-) Us evil US imperialists clearly don't have the hang of it yet... :-) Stan 20:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, this Vietnam / Iraq / Afghanistan stuff is total crap, and simply has no place on this page. An encyclopedia is not a place where people put down their wacky conspiracy theories and try to pass them off as fact. I mean, it's like putting "some people consider the Israeli Government to be the secret puppet-masters of the world. Of course they deny this but how do we know for sure!?! " on the Israel page. It's nonsense. I'm deleting it, and this time I hope it will stay deleted. user:J.J.

Where is a "conspiracy theory" here? That the Israeli government are the puppet-masters of the world is not a widely held opinion. That the U.S. is imperialist, however, is a widely held view, and thus deserves mention (not as a fact, but as a view). This can not be dismissed as "wacky". --Wik 05:50, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Last week over 50 Heads of State gave a standing ovation to a Prime Minister who claimed that the "Jews run the world," so I could argue that my comment is indeed a "widely held" opinion. Look, I don't have a big problem with this page, as far as the pre-1910 stuff goes. Hell, I was the one who created the "American Empire" page in the first place! But to claim the Vietnam War, Iraq war, and Afghanistan war were all "imperialist", without a shred of evidence other than some comment about how "they could be, we don't know for sure" is nonsense, and a conspiracy theory. user:J.J.

I haven't heard that the heads of state gave a standing ovation to that specific comment. But even if they share that view, those were the heads of state of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the reaction in other parts of the world has been very different, so I don't think it is a widely held view globally. But if it is, then yes, of course it should be mentioned, no matter how wacky you think it is. It should be said that some people believe this, and others dismiss it, listing the arguments of both sides. Then let the reader make up his own mind. What's wrong with that? The article shouldn't positively claim that the Iraq war was imperialist, but that it is considered as such by many. The fact that the "official" reason for the war has now been pretty much exposed as a lie, and that U.S. corporations are already making good profits of the war [1], is more than a shred of evidence. --Wik 19:53, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Another pathetic and amateurish thing about this article is that it completely overlooks the actions of the US in Latin America in the early part of this century, even though many of those actions are described in detail in the WP articles about the Navy ships that took part. Those actions are much more clearly imperialistic, but of course they're not front page news anymore, so it takes some actual research to learn about them. Stan 17:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The article as it stands is poor, but as the consensus seems to be that it's a valid topic for an article, so let's improve it. -- Infrogmation 17:35, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I haven't quite gotten irritated enough to take action myself, but my suggestion would be to turn it into an article United States imperialism that slices through all the events and attitudes that could qualify as imperialism. There are other articles on this already, for instance American Empire - presumably there are lots of US-haters who write these as a way to vent their feelings - plus History of the United States and New Imperialism has relevant material. Despite all the material, we're lacking a cogent summary that goes deeper than reflexive US-bashing, for instance to explain how a democracy could be considered imperialist even though the vast majority of the voters are strongly opposed to the idea of empire, and have been for many years. Stan 18:05, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

For all I know some contributors may indeed hate the USA; I am not privy to their personal beliefs. Still, people who thought the USA has behaved imperialistically and have objected to it to have ranged from radicals like Noam Chomsky to staunch conservatives like Robert Taft and Pat Buchanan and American icons like Mark Twain and Martin Luther King, Jr.. Let's watch our POV before throwing around the "US-bashing" "US-haters" label. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 18:36, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just one more comment; we shouldn't be making up our own stuff and throwing it around, we should be quoting from authorities, whether it be polls ("30% of Germans think the US is imperialist") or sources (for instance, one of my books quotes an 1890s-era Washington Post editorial opining that empire was a strange idea to Americans, but perhaps necessary), or books - there are certainly lots of those to choose from. No sentence without an authority to back it up! Stan 20:51, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree, but clearly since this is going to be a page that develops gradually, be patient about a ton of facts and figures at first. --Alex S 12:40, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Interesting sidenote: On the United States of America page, there is a section entitled "Colonial Interests," which begins: "The United States has held the following countries as colonies or de facto colonies at various times..." Yet nobody protested the existance of such a section. I think a lot of the complaints about this page are based on context rather than actual historical disagreements. --Alex S 05:13, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have made a fairly acceptable intro

I think I have made a fairly acceptable intro to the post WW2 accusations of American imperialism. I think it is important to portray these accusations as accusations, and make it clear that they are disputed, and not universially agreed upon. -user:J.J.

Why did you remove mention of the Somoza dynasty in Nicaragua? -- Infrogmation 06:45, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of vague. The mere existance of a dictatorship does not imply imperialism. I realize the Somoza crew were US-backed, but I see this as more of a strategic Cold War thing (at least in the later days) than a flat out "imperial" one. I mean, is supporting the Saudis "imperialistic"? How about supporting the Canadians? Is every friend of America just a pawn in the grand imperial game? I think the list should just stick with cases in which America actively tried to alter the political status quo of a country.

The Somoza administration were hardly in the same category as allies like Canada. US armed forces invaded the country to install the regeme. The Somozas made a big deal about their being supported by the US. -- Infrogmation

"actively tried to alter the political status quo"? So, like, if Estonia hires a lobbyist in DC, they're imperialists ruling the US? You can see why it's better to quote actual authorities rather than just making up stuff as you go along. Stan 06:01, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe status quo was not the right term. I just meant that allegations of American "Imperialism" are stronger if the US can be proven to have actively sought a radical change to the country, like by overthrowing the president or something. But you make a good point.

I don't really know much about the Somozas. All I meant was you can't just put their names on the page without explaining how their existance was uniquely "imperialist." I just didn't want every unpleasant US ally to be deemed imperialist sorely on the grounds that they sided with the United States. But if the Somoza situation was imposed by US troops, then sure, add them. user:J.J.

The Kingdom of Hawaii

Should The Kingdom of Hawaii became a republic in 1894 and in 1989 Hawaiian President Sanford Dole agreed to his nation's annexation by the United States. The republic ended in 1900 and the country became a territory of the US. read ... and in 1899 Hawaiian President ...? Kesuari 11.26 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Explanations of some of my changes

• I moved the bulk of the section on the Natives to Indian Wars because we were missing an article on that subject, and if we went into that much detail about every American imperialist venture the article would become far to large to be useful.
• I made the article more into a discussion of the debate over American imperialism, both today and at the time it was occuring, mostly because imperialism is an idea rather than a concrete event.
• I incorporated more on cultural and economic imperialism because I do not think the topics can be separated from military imperialism, nor do I believe that military imperialism is the the central focus of imperialism.
• I removed the POV warning because the changes made were fairly large, please feel free to reinsert it if you do not feel the bias has been suitably expunged.

-SimonP 22:27, Dec 3, 2003 (UTC)

Better, but still too many unattributed "many believe" or "many argue". Also you don't mention that imperialism was opposed by conservatives and promulgated by progressives/liberals in the 19th century, but that the positions completely reversed in the 20th century. It would be interesting to trace a connection with the use of "imperialist" as an epithet in Soviet propaganda, I'm sure there are books on the subject although I don't know any titles (currently deep in Teddy R's bio myself). Stan 23:46, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like the changes a lot too. The only major revision was that I moved back a lot of the information on Native Americans, albeit streamlined. I think that while too much information burdens the point the history of native-settler interaction in the US is key to the idea of US Imperialism. I want to start expanding the "current opinions" part of the article with global views (backed by #s and %s) on the idea. --Alex S 00:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

More back and forward normative debates

Ugh. More back and forward normative debates. More moral judgments and catch-phrase throwing. This might as well be Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. While AlexS has been doing some serious work, this article isn't going to work out on Wiki. It's just going to become more of a breeding ground for partisan trolling and posturing. On one hand, you'll have a forum for Anti-Americanism, and, on the other, you'll have to deal with J.J.'s personal essays and rationalizations. The only way to create an atmosphere conductive to some real historical writing on the subject is to redirect it to a new article on the diplomatic and military history of the United States. If anyone wants to do so, I can recommend scores of sources with ISBN numbers. I can also provide links to articles online if users want to get the new article done fairly quickly. 172 01:53, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not "rationalizing" I'm just trying to present the other side, which is lacking. I mean, if this page can openly present the "Marxist view" of how my country is an "imperial fiefdom" of America, than surely my passage about American distain for the term deserves a place as well. user:J.J.

Yes, you are. "Imperialism" is a standard social science term, albeit one defined in a variety of ways depending on the context, and a wealth of literature is available on the subject. It can also be used in a values-neutral context, and it will be used in a values-neutral context in this article. There is no place here for Marxist ploemics (which you are confusing with scholarship that adopts some Marxian analyses and concepts), nor your personal commentaries.

This is not a forum for your creative writing. No one cares how you react to this word personally. When you start talking about what kinds of images of which this word reminds you, everyone's bullshit detector should be going off. I doubt you'd be able to get away with this with your professors. 172 19:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You have to accept that regardless of whatever your own academic views of the term "imperialism" are, there are a lot of Americans who view the term's present-day application as a deliberate attempt to compare the United States to brutal regimes like the Roman Empire or whatever. I'm sure some people who use the term would even happily admit that by refering to American foreign policies as "Imperialism" they are trying to portray US actions as exploitative and brutal. This sort of "guilt by catagorization" or whatever you want to call it, is a legitimate criticism of the modern-day use of the term "American Imperialism" and deserves to be mentioned on this article. If I'm too much of a moron, someone else write it then. But you can't act like my criticism is just something that I thought up in a vaccuum. I could cite many articles where critics denounce the term because they believe it is overtly loaded or partisan. user:J.J.

Readers unfamiliar with sociology, political economy, and international relations easily confuse common technical terms with context-specific, values-neutral meanings - like "imperialism" - with the more popular usage of these terms in the slogans and ploemics of activists. The same goes for "nationalism," another term used - and abused - in popular discourse.

I will continue to revert any attempts to shift this article's focus from history to slogans. 172 22:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality Disputed?

maybe a "the neutrality of this article is disputed" is called for? based on this talk page at least... jengod 22:58, Feb 6, 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for a neutrality dispute. There is a need for users to stay on topic. "Imperialism" is common technical term in the social sciences with context-specific, values-neutral meanings. J.J just needs to look up what "imperialism" means in the first place and how it is used in the social sciences and history. This doesn't mean finding the first op-ed piece that comes up on Google or Yahoo. This means that he needs to go to his local library or university library and consult encyclopedias, social science sourcebooks, and textbooks. It would behoove him to do this, rather than rambling on about he personally "feels" about the term. 172 00:34, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There has got to be a more NPOV title for this

The following isn't pretty or perfect, but it's better than the current title:

United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism

the inclusion of the history of such policies is clearly implied, I think. I'm new, and can't quite read whether there is a consensus regarding the original title, so I hesitate to edit it myself. But I do recommend someone second this motion and do so...

title is fine

The title is fine (not my choice for an article entry, though), but I understand why some users are suspicious. When familiar only with the popular usage of "imperialism," general readers and students often use this term without knowing what it means. They assume that it is a pejorative term.

However, in diplomatic and military history, "imperialism" is a standard, value-neutral term. It merely refers to influence by nations or peoples over weaker nations or peoples. Dating from antiquity, imperialism has taken many forms. Thus, general readers often conflate imperialism and colonialism, which is properly used in a more restrictive sense.

Colonialism entails formal political control involving territorial annexation. Imperialism can be exercised formally or informally, directly or indirectly, politically or economically. One can say that colonialism is a form of imperialism, but not vice versa.

Having observed so many ridiculous, protracted edit wars stemming from the failure to understand standard, encyclopedic definitions, I would not have created this article. Given the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstanding on Wiki, a broader focus on the Military and diplomatic history of the United States, IMHO, would have worked out better. But you already have too much work here to change the title. Without a substantial rewrite, no other title is appropriate. While the title is going to raise eyebrows occasionally, it is not a violation of NPOV policies so long as the article stays on focus. 172 11:37, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

172, it is doubtful that a reader would be likely to ignore the popular usage of the term and focus instinctively on a fixed, unambigious, value-neutral usage in military and diplomatic history, if this usage is indeed as you believe. Readers are more likely to be either attracted to or repelled by the article out of hand on the basis of their understanding of the word. A minority might look for context via the Wikipedia definition of imperialism, which is not a bad one, but is not yours, and does not help with the NPOV problems in the title. In any event, the propagandistic use of the word imperialism by supporters and opponents of the U.S. and / or its policies has clearly pushed the word's understood meaning completely beyond the realm of value-neutrality.

Other than re-titling, no rewrite would be necessary. In fact, my proposed title is far more true to the current body of the work - which I have little problem with. In it, each and every idea is introduced as something that *has been viewed as* imperialism:

"According to some who argue America has been imperialistic the first step... was the conquest of the Native American peoples who inhabited North America."

"The Louisiana Purchase... is often considered the first major event in American expansion, although it is rarely cited an act of imperialism."

"The Mexican-American War from 1846-1848 is often viewed as motivated by American imperialism."

"The late nineteenth century is the era which the most historians consider to be one of imperialism."

"The Philippine-American War (1899-1913) is perhaps the most egregious example of United States imperialism." I happen to agree, but the word "perhaps" is still, appropriately, used.

"Many argue that the United States had a de facto empire in the Americas throughout this period."

"As with most aspects of American imperialism these [post-WWII] events are still disputed (especially in America itself) as many believe that they were not imperialist in nature."

This is all fairly good NPOV. The title ought to follow suit.

Like I said, I'm new to this, and if I'm the only one who sees a problem here, it ought to be left as is. If someone else feels I have a point, they can second my motion by editing the title to "United States Policies Viewed as Imperialism."

If users don't know the definition of the term

I haven't added any content to this article (other than removing some irrelevant tangents). Nor was this my choice for an article. If users don't know the definition of the term, you can edit the article and add it to the intro. A word may be widely confused, but it's fine so long as this article uses properly. 172 03:08, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)